Grobbelaar v Vertice Healthcare (Pty) Ltd (NCT/157190/2020/75(1)(b)) [2021] ZANCT 36 (3 September 2021)

Grobbelaar v Vertice Healthcare (Pty) Ltd (NCT/157190/2020/75(1)(b)) [2021] ZANCT 36 (3 September 2021)

The Tribunal determined that, in the interests of justice, leave to refer should be granted so that the complex legal issues raised—such as the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to implanted medical devices, the status of the Applicant as a consumer, and the appropriate forum for such claims—can be properly considered by a full panel. The Tribunal noted the absence of direct evidence that the device was defective and clarified that any claim under sections 55 and 56 of the CPA would relate only to the cost of the goods, not surgical or ancillary costs. Given the novelty and potential precedent-setting nature of the matter, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant leave...

Citation
[2021] ZANCT 36
Parties
Applicant: Riaan Grobbelaar; Respondent: Vertice Healthcare (Pty) Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 September 2021
Case Number
NCT/157190/2020/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Refer Under Section 75(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act
Outcome
Leave to refer is granted; no order as to costs.
Judges
J Simpson
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Leave to Refer, Defective Goods, Medical Devices
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Leave to Refer Defective Goods Medical Devices

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Riaan Grobbelaar

Applicant

Vertice Healthcare (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Refer Under Section 75(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implanted medical device constitutes 'goods' under the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant qualifies as a 'consumer' for purposes of the CPA.
  3. 3 Whether the CPA provides for a claim regarding defective implanted medical devices.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal determined that, in the interests of justice, leave to refer should be granted so that the complex legal issues raised—such as the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to implanted medical devices, the status of the Applicant as a consumer, and the appropriate forum for such claims—can be properly considered by a full panel. The Tribunal noted the absence of direct evidence that the device was defective and clarified that any claim under sections 55 and 56 of the CPA would relate only to the cost of the goods, not surgical or ancillary costs. Given the novelty and potential precedent-setting nature of the matter, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to grant leave...

Court Disposition

Leave to refer is granted; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The Applicant's application for leave to refer is granted.
  • There is no order as to costs.